Taxes: The price we pay for a civilized society?

So, the following is a response to a quote by Krugman and having us go back to a 1950 tax code in which taxes were incredibly high and how Krugman equated that high tax rate to a booming economy. I responded and he responded with the following.

Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society. Part if the social contract we collectively and voluntarily agree upon in order to live together peacefully. Want a less restrictive social contract? Move... there are plenty of societies with weak governments and low tax burdens... strangely enough, these also tend to be societies where corruption and violence are endemic (see: Somalia, Afghanistan, the DRC). Obviously the pendulum can swing too far the other way, but the U.S. is hardly in danger of that.

Of course, I see a few fallacies here in addition to "social contract" which is very irritating to me. Also, the "move" part is rather telling in regards to this person... anyways. Your response?

"social contract" is that like saying be grateful your living here even though you have a problem with the rules? Sounds like a daddy figure speak to me. Reminds me of Obama when he says we have "a moral obligation" to (blank)...it's all subjective thus not clearly a definition shared by all but of that person only. I'm sure Hitler thought he had a "moral obligation" and he created "a social contract" as well. Then again, so does God in Heaven. Which extreme are we talking about? It's political correctness speak, nothing else.

Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society. Part if the social contract we collectively and voluntarily agree upon in order to live together peacefully. Want a less restrictive social contract? Move...

Of course, Paul 'Capital Control Freak' Krugman doesn't really mean that. In fact, that runs contrary to what he has expressed in the past.

Originally Posted by Paul Krugman

But I also concluded that the threat of further capital flight would prevent Asian economies from simply reflating, that is, increasing public spending and cutting interest rates to get their economies growing again. And so I found myself advocating temporary restrictions on the ability of investors to pull money out of crisis economies--a curfew, if you like, on capital flight--as part of a recovery strategy.

That was written by Krugman in 1999. What he really means is that you PERSONALLY can move (and I don't think he even means that), but in an economic crisis your precious capital can all stay behind. It is common for idiots like Krugman to wait for a first round of "not-so-bad" statistics and take credit, while declare victory.

Originally Posted by Paul Krugman

Continued excerpts from the same article...

Now, it turned out that just at the time that I went public with those views, Mahathir and his advisers were secretly working out a plan to impose capital controls as part of a recovery strategy. According to what I have been told, my own public statement played a small role in the final decision...And so I really could not avoid going to Malaysia to discuss those controls, a year after they had been imposed.

I arrived at a moment of celebration. When the controls were put on, many Western analysts predicted disaster: a collapse of the economy, hyperinflation, rampant black markets. It didn't happen.
....
But the truth is that while Malaysia's recovery has proved the hysterical opponents of capital controls wrong, it has not exactly proved the proponents right.

Nonetheless, Malaysia has proved a point--namely, that controlling capital in a crisis is at least feasible.

Hasn't the real tax stayed almost constant since around 1950? It's not like anyone actually paid 90%.

Yeah, I guess a third to one half or so of your livelihood compelled each year over the past 60 years sounds not so bad--a really nice bargain, in fact--if you compare it to a 90% that nobody ever really paid. And your point belies the one Krugman was trying to make (i.e, that high tax rates alone = booming, healthy economy).

short memory

There was NO Federal income tax in the USA until 1913. The years between the Civil War and 1913 were perhaps the years of the greatest growth in real, sustainable prosperity in all of human history. Hardly a time of chaos and corruption. Since the Federal income tax has been in place, we have seen the unrestrained growth of crony capitalism and war.

As for his argument about social contract and "love it or leave it", that is no different than the thug shaking down the small businessman for protection money. When the thugs rule the neighborhood, you always have the "choice" of abandoning your property to them and running away. How is that any different than what this fellow proposes and is that what he means by social contract? A protection racket where your choices are pay up or give up everything and flee in the hope that you can find a place to live that ISN'T ruled by thugs?

If government truly offers benefits to everyone that offset the burdens, then it should easily survive a policy that allows peaceful secession at every level. The only reason secession needs to be beaten down with a gun butt is that government, in fact, is far more burden than benefit to those who want to earn an honest living by work and trade. If taxes were indeed the price that had to be paid for civilization, everyone would pay it in a TRULY voluntary way. I don't see any government offering that option.

The proper concern of society is the preservation of individual freedom; the proper concern of the individual is the harmony of society.

Except as to the rule of appointment, the United States have an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America.

yes

Originally Posted by Danke

Our current Federal income tax has its roots going back to 1862.

Yes. A temporary income tax was enacted (to support war, of course) but then repealed after the civil war. So what I said was true: the era from the close of the civil war to 1913 was free from Federal income tax AND saw perhaps the greatest increase in prosperity in world history.

The proper concern of society is the preservation of individual freedom; the proper concern of the individual is the harmony of society.

Yes. A temporary income tax was enacted (to support war, of course) but then repealed after the civil war. So what I said was true: the era from the close of the civil war to 1913 was free from Federal income tax AND saw perhaps the greatest increase in prosperity in world history.

No, that Income tax act (along with many others) is still very much alive. The was a portion that the Pollock case decided that was unconstitutional, but the 16th A fixed that part. The Income tax was only temporarily suspended in 1873.

Except as to the rule of appointment, the United States have an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America.

With all this crime, poverty, homelessness, warmongering, killing of unborn children, deception by the press, government & law enforcement corruption, huge prison population, etc., our society is far from civilized; if that's what taxes is for then I want a refund for breach of contract!